[un1xl0ser]

Can you please provide your definition of intelligence?

I would argue that theoretically, a government (or other entity) could use intelligence but use it within a set of moral and/or ethical guidelines that uses a system of checks and balances.

[Kalium]

Intelligence is the dirty-but-necessary stuff that makes it possible to accurately guide diplomacy, economic policy, trade, and military action to achieve the desired goals of a nation-state for a minimum of cost. It includes internal security.

Generally, intelligence cannot operate openly, even under a strict set of guidelines. Further, there will always be situations where efficacy runs into guidelines and something has to give. Would you be willing to violate the privacy of one person to prevent an attack that would kill five thousand? How about a dozen people's privacy? A hundred? A thousand? A million?

As I understand it, those aren't purely theoretical questions in the world of intelligence.

[moe]

Would you be willing to violate the privacy of one person to prevent an attack that would kill five thousand?

Why don't we skip the suggestive "thought experiments" and look at some facts instead.

A grand total of 3467 people in the USA have been killed by terror attacks since 1970[1].

In the same timeframe 2091 americans were killed by lightning strike[2] and roughly 102.000.000 died of old age.

Please explain how these numbers justify the NSA's yearly budget of $75 billion dollars, and their documented, ongoing violation of millions of people's privacy.

[1] http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatal...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology

[3] http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/news/economy/nsa-surveillanc...

[4] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/25/icreach-nsa-ci...

[nitrogen]

Generally, intelligence cannot operate openly, even under a strict set of guidelines.

Can this claim be substantiated with evidence?

[mike_hearn]

No. Otherwise police departments would be unable to do anything and would cease to exist. Police operations vary in secrecy but even the most secret eventually stop being so, as there is a need to actually prosecute.

The idea that "spys gonna spy" is one we need to start collectively challenging. Why do we need these organisations at all? If NSA/GCHQ were wound up and their technical specialists re-allocated 80% to domestic law enforcement for computer forensics purposes, and 20% to a new dedicated counter-intel-only organisation, would the sky fall? I doubt it.

[Kalium]

Have you examined your proposal for drawbacks?

[throwaway150219]

Would you be willing to violate the privacy of 6 million people to commit genocide?